[vannevar]

I'm not sure what problems you're talking about in the first place.

That's the point. :-) A number of them have been enumerated above: protecting banking customers from loss in the event of theft; regulating the location and safety of hotels; providing some means of recourse against a dishonest cabbie.

[jeffem]

How are those "problems inherent in the peer-to-peer model"? Aren't those problems any business in the industry has to face?

[vannevar]

They are inherent in peer-to-peer because peer-to-peer transactions are based on trust, and trust ultimately has to be based on accountability. If I'm in a small town, I can trust a local resident because I know their history and where they live. If they injure or steal from me in some way, I have some recourse, if nothing else with the social shame that can be brought to bear in a small society. But in a large-scale business, in a society of strangers, that accountability has to be enforced by some kind of regulatory body. And that kind of regulation implies at least some kind of comparatively centralized authority, which is at odds with a true peer-to-peer ideal.

[vannevar]

No, I'm saying someone will have to be the regulatory body for AirBnb, because their business is infringing on other people's rights, for example neighboring homeowners who are disturbed or damaged by AirBnb renters, or customers who are exposed to dangerous conditions on an AirBnb property.

[jeffem]

Are you saying that AirBnb, for example, can't be the regulatory body for its customers? Or is there a reason why it's necessary for the government to step in?